- Does the wise philosopher abandon all knowledge as soon as proven wrong? What kind of person clings to knowledge?
- What would the perfect state look once embedded?
We can stipulate that a spirit exist. In ancient terms, this can be seen as an algorithm. Is there an algorithm guiding the physical elements we interact with or do the physical element act out of chaos?
Spirits/algorithms can be simulated. Does this simulation exist in individual perception or is there universal consideration to every simulation? How is a simulation different than from the “real deal”?
The real deal would have to be something authentic, universal, eternal, infinite. A simulation would be a subset of an eternal process that processes its own. We encounter the first problem. How can a simulation mimic the real deal? With a belief that it is. As long as the belief is real, the simulation is real.
Dogma — We’re left with an analysis that consists of a persistent analysis that our analysis is an analysis that potentially exists as the real deal. As such, we can analyze an infinite amount of things and the only consistency guaranteed is our own individual analysis (“I think therefore I am” and “what should happens and what ought may happen”).
Preservation as an instinct seeks for the analysis to continue. “Stranger in a Strangeland” is a good book that deals with this change of analysis.
Ego death would be a change in the analysis that consists of analysis that ceases to analyze. Analysis persist. Analysis is preserved. Something else dies that we had somehow associated with a self but doesn’t persist anymore.
The spirit or algorithm that exists within us at any time “seems” to mimic the real deal. We assume that the mimicry is embedded enough that we our somehow “distinct” from the real deal.
This is the first time the spirit is made clear. This distinction can’t exist without opposition.
Part of our analysis is made up by a seemingly real deal process. This process has been analyzed by western science and it’s the best hope we have at persistent knowledge. Through the method of science, pettiness and trivial cultural differences are sacrificed for perception of testable axioms. So far, we can distinguish stuff like gravity, chemical elements, and quantum mechanics as somehow simulated analysis of a real deal universe that exists.
Imagine 900 years ago, myths taking the place of science. Every aspect of our life would be analyzed through the understanding of myths. From these cultures, there would be an identity based on real deal processes. The individual existed with our own capacity but within an embedded spirit that was unique to them. The only difference is, that if at some point you’re aware of this, then you’re embedded within the moment in a differently unique way.
Our appeal to science and modern technology only changes us from the individual 900 years ago in simulated differences. That’s why philosophy and other types of analysis are still valid from 900+ years ago. “Beneath” the simulated there is something that lasts a lot longer. Moreover, the simulated only exists to the extant that it can analyze.
Once analysis is over, there is no more. The overness cannot be simulated. As a consequence, the analysis that did the analyzing, being itself simulated, doesn’t exist the overness. Theoretically, the only thing over is the eternal.
What does it mean to exist over the eternal without analysis or simulation? Or at least without simulation?
We tie the eternal with our simulated terms. The eternal also analyzes. The eternal knows more math than we do. The eternal is good?
The analysis becomes like fractals. Our identity are added and piecemealed together through millennia of cultural growth and maturation. Our language shows example of this. All these words differ in age, origin, but are put together to embed meaning. Tools and technology: the wheel alongside cogs and circuits, all differing in age by hundred of years. All come together for the moments where a product is produced from their labor.
Before the hammer existed, there was a need for the hammer. The need shaped how the hammer came to be embedded. Through our current analysis, we could have predicted the creation of the hammer but we weren’t aware enough at the time. Now we can predict future tools because our current scientific tools have been efficient in enlightening the future to see what’s to come.
The questions remain: What tools will we need outside of the predicted ones?
How will following the prediction change us? Shedding skin, what will we have to abandon? Can alternative solutions be found or pursued?
The need can be as or more important than the satisfaction. The need for the hammer called many predecessors into embeddedness, but the hammer couldn’t being molded until it reached an eternal embrace. This eternity came about because humans were able to reach a point where the hammer was standardized. The hammer can’t experience ego death because it’s pretty neutral but extremely agreed upon, so the hammer is eternal.
So gravity and hammers are part of the analysis we carry regardless of the individual existential angst and moral struggles. How about how we embed the spirit of our existence? How do we simulate existence compared to the existence of the real deal our simulation is based upon? How do we embed our moral struggles and how do we overcome them?